You and the rest of the people thinking it are kooks. And NO the intel was not that specific.
Hmmm? It sure sounded that way to me!
Specific enough.
From Cnn :
" Highlights of the report include:
? An intelligence report received in May 2001 indicating that al Qaeda was trying to send operatives to the United States through Canada to carry out an attack using explosives. That information had been passed on to intelligence and law enforcement agencies.
? An allegation that al Qaeda had been considering ways to hijack American planes to win the release of operatives who had been arrested in 1998 and 1999.
? An allegation that bin Laden was set on striking the United States as early as 1997 and through early 2001.
? Intelligence suggesting that suspected al Qaeda operatives were traveling to and from the United States, were U.S. citizens, and may have had a support network in the country.
? A report that at least 70 FBI investigations were under way in 2001 regarding possible al Qaeda cells/terrorist-related operations in the United States "
It's not like this sort of thing can't happen. I mean presidents are human to. If you could just ask Nixon or even Clinton.
Dodge ... weave ... what you posted was that these attacks were allowed to happen as if Bush knew about them and did nothing on purpose because it would benefit him in the end.
Nice try bunge. The intel' was not so specific that because something happened that's proof that Bush did nothing and thus allowed 9-11 to occur for his own benefit.
Nice try bunge. The intel' was not so specific that because something happened that's proof that Bush did nothing and thus allowed 9-11 to occur for his own benefit.
You can cut the condescending bullshit, I'm not trying anything.
Yes, we have succeeded in doing something there that no one has been able to do for many years: bring shiites and sunnis together against a common cause...killing Americans. Yes, I feel safer already.
Well said my lad. That's like someone getting us so pissed off, people from the Green Party cooperate with Republicans. The last time that happened was when we were...fighting the Nazis.
Hey Scott wasn't invading Iraq supposed to save American lives, make gas cheaper, free Iraqis and stop civilian casualties over there, all while improving our economy and making the world a better place, in which America had more international respect? Ooooh maybe when Bush was saying all that it was really Opposite Day! How could we all have been so stupid!!!!
Dodge ... weave ... what you posted was that these attacks were allowed to happen as if Bush knew about them and did nothing on purpose because it would benefit him in the end.
But you have no "fact" list for that.
Or should have known and decided on another course.
But do what exactly? That's an important question, especially when thinking that this was before 9/11.
Not gone fishing for the rest of the day.
Make a policy that any and all potentially terrorist-related info go to a special intelligence group. During the lead-up to 9.11 there were many instances where informants or detainees gave up information and were discounted. Also, the casing of federal buildings discussed in the PDB refers to an incident where the three men were actually detained and released before their film was developed.
Taking counter-terrorism responisibilities away from the FBI would have been a good step. People (read: insiders/agents) were speaking out about it before 9.11 and it's a total cop-out to say that this couldn't have happened without the attacks.
Thoogh I think that the PDB has been quite revealing and damning of the administration, in particular the manner in which they seemed to lie about its contents before its release
I can't help but think that its being witheld & then released, along with Condi Rice's refusing & then relenting has all been a well orchestrated PR stunt& ultimately a Red Herring trying to distract opponents of the Admin with this lesser of two evils argument, while diverting them from the truly damning issue. . .
. . . which is, of course, what Dick Clarke said: the fact that the WOT has been damaged absolutely by the administrations obsession with Iraq
All of the talk shows and etc are talking about the PDB which needs to be discussed and is damning, but it is also quite vague, and, predictably, breaks right down on partisan lines. Whereas the Iraq obsession seems to be the LARGEST of possible calamities that a president can make and is the Bush adminstration's biggest liability, IMO, especially as it becomes clearer and clearer that the war was founded on very misguided ideals that had no grounding in reality . . which is a good definition of ideology: "a false relationship to real conditions"
so, a war made for clearly ideological reasons . .
But do what exactly? That's an important question, especially when thinking that this was before 9/11.
It's sort of important, but I'm more interested in knowing how much or little they did with the information they had. It looks more an more like they didn't do much of anything.
Or should have known and decided on another course.
There's an awful lot of circumstancial evidence.
Your indignation doesn't impress me.
No there's not a lot of circumstantial evidence.
One piece of evidence you profess is that the Pentagon should have seen the plane coming and done something about it. So then because it didn't someone must have intervened to assure that the plane would hit the Pentagon. After all you claim that this would benefit Bush in a way that you haven't said. But what you didn't know is that the Pentagon was on the flight path to National Airport and as such has planes flying over ALL OF THE TIME! So that "circumstantial" is gone.
The only other evidence you have is that the intelligence before 9-11 pointed to an attack and that Bush ignored this so that the attacks would happen. You have nothing to back this up. The worst you can say is that he was asleep at the switch or maybe incompetent. But you have nothing to back up the claim that he knew something was going to happen and failed to act on purpose so that the fallout of the attack would benefit him.
The only other evidence you have is that the intelligence before 9-11 pointed to an attack and that Bush ignored this so that the attacks would happen. You have nothing to back this up. The worst you can say is that he was asleep at the switch or maybe incompetent. But you have nothing to back up the claim that he knew something was going to happen and failed to act on purpose so that the fallout of the attack would benefit him.
So what are we left with?
Looks like what we're left with is that "he was asleep at the switch or maybe incompetent".
[---oooops . . .did I accidently repost this? . . . hmm maybe you can read it and get over your bickering . . . so sorry ]
Though I think that the PDB has been quite revealing and damning of the administration, in particular the manner in which they seemed to lie about its contents before its release
I can't help but think that its being witheld & then released, along with Condi Rice's refusing & then relenting has all been a well orchestrated PR stunt& ultimately a Red Herring trying to distract opponents of the Admin with this lesser of two evils argument, while diverting them from the truly damning issue. . .
. . . which is, of course, what Dick Clarke said: the fact that the WOT has been damaged absolutely by the administrations obsession with Iraq
All of the talk shows and etc are talking about the PDB which needs to be discussed and is damning, but it is also quite vague, and, predictably, breaks right down on partisan lines. Whereas the Iraq obsession seems to be the LARGEST of possible calamities that a president can make and is the Bush adminstration's biggest liability, IMO, especially as it becomes clearer and clearer that the war was founded on very misguided ideals that had no grounding in reality . . which is a good definition of ideology: "a false relationship to real conditions"
so, a war made for clearly ideological reasons . .
Comments
Originally posted by Scott
You and the rest of the people thinking it are kooks. And NO the intel was not that specific.
Hmmm? It sure sounded that way to me!
Specific enough.
From Cnn :
" Highlights of the report include:
? An intelligence report received in May 2001 indicating that al Qaeda was trying to send operatives to the United States through Canada to carry out an attack using explosives. That information had been passed on to intelligence and law enforcement agencies.
? An allegation that al Qaeda had been considering ways to hijack American planes to win the release of operatives who had been arrested in 1998 and 1999.
? An allegation that bin Laden was set on striking the United States as early as 1997 and through early 2001.
? Intelligence suggesting that suspected al Qaeda operatives were traveling to and from the United States, were U.S. citizens, and may have had a support network in the country.
? A report that at least 70 FBI investigations were under way in 2001 regarding possible al Qaeda cells/terrorist-related operations in the United States "
It's not like this sort of thing can't happen. I mean presidents are human to. If you could just ask Nixon or even Clinton.
But you have no "fact" list for that.
Originally posted by Scott
You and the rest of the people thinking it are kooks. And NO the intel was not that specific.
How specific did the intel need to be to do something?
Originally posted by Scott
Nice try bunge. The intel' was not so specific that because something happened that's proof that Bush did nothing and thus allowed 9-11 to occur for his own benefit.
You can cut the condescending bullshit, I'm not trying anything.
Yes, we have succeeded in doing something there that no one has been able to do for many years: bring shiites and sunnis together against a common cause...killing Americans. Yes, I feel safer already.
Well said my lad. That's like someone getting us so pissed off, people from the Green Party cooperate with Republicans. The last time that happened was when we were...fighting the Nazis.
Hey Scott wasn't invading Iraq supposed to save American lives, make gas cheaper, free Iraqis and stop civilian casualties over there, all while improving our economy and making the world a better place, in which America had more international respect? Ooooh maybe when Bush was saying all that it was really Opposite Day! How could we all have been so stupid!!!!
Originally posted by Scott
Dodge ... weave ... what you posted was that these attacks were allowed to happen as if Bush knew about them and did nothing on purpose because it would benefit him in the end.
But you have no "fact" list for that.
Or should have known and decided on another course.
There's an awful lot of circumstancial evidence.
Your indignation doesn't impress me.
Originally posted by bunge
How specific did the intel need to be to do something?
But do what exactly? That's an important question, especially when thinking that this was before 9/11.
Originally posted by BuonRotto
But do what exactly? That's an important question, especially when thinking that this was before 9/11.
Not gone fishing for the rest of the day.
Make a policy that any and all potentially terrorist-related info go to a special intelligence group. During the lead-up to 9.11 there were many instances where informants or detainees gave up information and were discounted. Also, the casing of federal buildings discussed in the PDB refers to an incident where the three men were actually detained and released before their film was developed.
Taking counter-terrorism responisibilities away from the FBI would have been a good step. People (read: insiders/agents) were speaking out about it before 9.11 and it's a total cop-out to say that this couldn't have happened without the attacks.
I can't help but think that its being witheld & then released, along with Condi Rice's refusing & then relenting has all been a well orchestrated PR stunt& ultimately a Red Herring trying to distract opponents of the Admin with this lesser of two evils argument, while diverting them from the truly damning issue. . .
. . . which is, of course, what Dick Clarke said: the fact that the WOT has been damaged absolutely by the administrations obsession with Iraq
All of the talk shows and etc are talking about the PDB which needs to be discussed and is damning, but it is also quite vague, and, predictably, breaks right down on partisan lines. Whereas the Iraq obsession seems to be the LARGEST of possible calamities that a president can make and is the Bush adminstration's biggest liability, IMO, especially as it becomes clearer and clearer that the war was founded on very misguided ideals that had no grounding in reality . . which is a good definition of ideology: "a false relationship to real conditions"
so, a war made for clearly ideological reasons . .
Originally posted by BuonRotto
But do what exactly? That's an important question, especially when thinking that this was before 9/11.
It's sort of important, but I'm more interested in knowing how much or little they did with the information they had. It looks more an more like they didn't do much of anything.
Originally posted by jimmac
Or should have known and decided on another course.
There's an awful lot of circumstancial evidence.
Your indignation doesn't impress me.
No there's not a lot of circumstantial evidence.
One piece of evidence you profess is that the Pentagon should have seen the plane coming and done something about it. So then because it didn't someone must have intervened to assure that the plane would hit the Pentagon. After all you claim that this would benefit Bush in a way that you haven't said. But what you didn't know is that the Pentagon was on the flight path to National Airport and as such has planes flying over ALL OF THE TIME! So that "circumstantial" is gone.
The only other evidence you have is that the intelligence before 9-11 pointed to an attack and that Bush ignored this so that the attacks would happen. You have nothing to back this up. The worst you can say is that he was asleep at the switch or maybe incompetent. But you have nothing to back up the claim that he knew something was going to happen and failed to act on purpose so that the fallout of the attack would benefit him.
So what are we left with?
Originally posted by Scott
The only other evidence you have is that the intelligence before 9-11 pointed to an attack and that Bush ignored this so that the attacks would happen. You have nothing to back this up. The worst you can say is that he was asleep at the switch or maybe incompetent. But you have nothing to back up the claim that he knew something was going to happen and failed to act on purpose so that the fallout of the attack would benefit him.
So what are we left with?
Looks like what we're left with is that "he was asleep at the switch or maybe incompetent".
What a ringing endorsement!
Originally posted by Scott
And that jimmac is a conspiracy nut.
No one's a nut for pointing out the facts.
PS Aren't personal attacks like this one from scott against the posting guidelines?
Though I think that the PDB has been quite revealing and damning of the administration, in particular the manner in which they seemed to lie about its contents before its release
I can't help but think that its being witheld & then released, along with Condi Rice's refusing & then relenting has all been a well orchestrated PR stunt& ultimately a Red Herring trying to distract opponents of the Admin with this lesser of two evils argument, while diverting them from the truly damning issue. . .
. . . which is, of course, what Dick Clarke said: the fact that the WOT has been damaged absolutely by the administrations obsession with Iraq
All of the talk shows and etc are talking about the PDB which needs to be discussed and is damning, but it is also quite vague, and, predictably, breaks right down on partisan lines. Whereas the Iraq obsession seems to be the LARGEST of possible calamities that a president can make and is the Bush adminstration's biggest liability, IMO, especially as it becomes clearer and clearer that the war was founded on very misguided ideals that had no grounding in reality . . which is a good definition of ideology: "a false relationship to real conditions"
so, a war made for clearly ideological reasons . .
Originally posted by Scott
And that jimmac is a conspiracy nut.
Ha! Scott calling me a nut?
Wow!
Originally posted by Scott
What facts?
This is a primary example of what's wrong with Bush supporters.
Total denial of anything they might find threatening. Also they never question even if it's just a possibility.
Originally posted by jimmac
This is a primary example of what's wrong with Bush supporters.
Total denial of anything they might find threatening. Also they never question even if it's just a possibility.
I already addressed your "facts" and this is the best response you have?
Were you even aware that the Pentagon was in the flight path for national airport?
You haven't told us how Bush benefits from all this.
But I'm the one with the problem?